"If the judges interpret the laws themselves, and suffer none else to interpret, they may easily make, of the laws, [a shredded] shipman's hose!" - King James I of England, around 1616.

“No class of the community ought to be allowed freer scope in the expression or publication of opinions as to the capacity, impartiality or integrity of judges than members of the bar. They have the best opportunities of observing and forming a correct judgment. They are in constant attendance on the courts. Hundreds of those who are called on to vote never enter a court-house, or if they do, it is only at intervals as jurors, witnesses or parties. To say that an attorney can only act or speak on this subject under liability to be called to account and to be deprived of his profession and livelihood by the very judge or judges whom he may consider it his duty to attack and expose, is a position too monstrous to be entertained for a moment under our present system,” Justice Sharwood in Ex Parte Steinman and Hensel, 95 Pa 220, 238-39 (1880).

“This case illustrates to me the serious consequences to the Bar itself of not affording the full protections of the First Amendment to its applicants for admission. For this record shows that [the rejected attorney candidate] has many of the qualities that are needed in the American Bar. It shows not only that [the rejected attorney candidate] has followed a high moral, ethical and patriotic course in all of the activities of his life, but also that he combines these more common virtues with the uncommon virtue of courage to stand by his principles at any cost.

It is such men as these who have most greatly honored the profession of the law. The legal profession will lose much of its nobility and its glory if it is not constantly replenished with lawyers like these. To force the Bar to become a group of thoroughly orthodox, time-serving, government-fearing individuals is to humiliate and degrade it.” In Re Anastaplo, 18 Ill. 2d 182, 163 N.E.2d 429 (1959), cert. granted, 362 U.S. 968 (1960), affirmed over strong dissent, 366 U.S. 82 (1961), Justice Black, Chief Justice Douglas and Justice Brennan, dissenting.

" I do not believe that the practice of law is a "privilege" which empowers Government to deny lawyers their constitutional rights. The mere fact that a lawyer has important responsibilities in society does not require or even permit the State to deprive him of those protections of freedom set out in the Bill of Rights for the precise purpose of insuring the independence of the individual against the Government and those acting for the Government”. Lathrop v Donohue, 367 US 820 (1961), Justice Black, dissenting.

"The legal profession must take great care not to emulate the many occupational groups that have managed to convert licensure from a sharp weapon of public defense into blunt instrument of self-enrichment". Walter Gellhorn, "The Abuse of Occupational Licensing", University of Chicago Law Review, Volume 44 Issue 1, September of 1976.

“Because the law requires that judges no matter how corrupt, who do not act in the clear absence of jurisdiction while performing a judicial act, are immune from suit, former Judge Ciavarella will escape liability for the vast majority of his conduct in this action. This is, to be sure, against the popular will, but it is the very oath which he is alleged to have so indecently, cavalierly, baselessly and willfully violated for personal gain that requires this Court to find him immune from suit”, District Judge A. Richard Caputo in H.T., et al, v. Ciavarella, Jr, et al, Case No. 3:09-cv-00286-ARC in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Document 336, page 18, November 20, 2009. This is about judges who were sentencing kids to juvenile detention for kickbacks.

Sunday, May 8, 2016

Will attorney Richard Harlem be now prosecuted for a federal crime of fraud, for fraudulently adding a party to a lawsuit - like a Jersey attorney was convicted and sentenced?

In November of 2015 it came out that Richard Harlem's representations to several courts for 8.5 years that David Mokay was suing my husband in the Mokay saga were false.

As said David Mokay in a sworn affidavit.

Since David Mokay never testified in any proceedings where he was allegedly a Plaintiff, over 8.5 years, never submitted any affidavits, and since Richard Harlem fought tooth and claw to prevent David Mokay from having to answer interrogatories under oath, to prevent my husband and myself as my husband's attorney from seeing the original of the retainer agreement, and to prevent our contact with David Mokay, it is clear that David Mokay is telling the truth.

The feds just obtained a criminal conviction and sentencing for 2 years in federal prison against an attorney who falsely added 100 parties to asbestos lawsuits.

Richard Harlem falsely added "just one" party to a lawsuit - which changes only the number of criminal counts.

My question is - when will Richard Harlem be investigated, prosecuted and locked up by the feds?

Richard Harlem's father, the retired Supreme Court judge, died in 2012 and cannot protect Harlem now, and his political connections may be wary of protecting the obvious fraudster, especially in view of the looming shadow of Preet Bharara who already obtained convictions of the two heads of New York Legislative chambers, Sheldon Silver and Dean Skelos, and is now after the New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo.

Richard Harlem's longtime tenant New York State Senator Seward may be wary to offer help to Richard Harlem in view of what happened to Sheldon Silver and Dean Skelos.   

And, the recent tendency is to discipline judges for disobeying the law - not so good for sons of judges like Richard Harlem, is it? 

So - my question is, when will Richard Harlem be prosecuted by the feds?

No comments:

Post a Comment